You keep saying "left the situation," but unless she had a way of getting out, she hadn't left anything. She went into an enclosed garage that she reportedly could not exit from without going back through the house where her attacker was located. If there's an assailant in my living room, and I retreat to my bedroom to get my gun, I haven't "left the situation" - I've gone to arm myself against the person assaulting me in my home. Unless the garage door was standing wide open and she had an easy way out to run for her life, she had not "retreated" or left farking anything. I don't know why you can't understand that. What I've read about this is that she was trapped in the house and COULD NOT get out through the garage.

Now, if she ran OUTSIDE to get a gun in her car parked out on the street, and then ran back INSIDE, then you would have a good point. But that's not what happened, no matter how much you want to wish it into being true.

I don't see how people are at all confused at the verdict.#1 Under US law the burden of proof rests on the prosecution#2 This entire past week all the articles and commentary (I have seen linked on Fark and abroad) have been on how shoddy, terrible, and lacking of evidence the prosecution had.#3 The manslaughter charge was a last ditch attempt to try and save face and probably made a poor impression on the jury about how confident the prosecution felt about their case. (Spoiler: Not very)

This entire case was a MURDER trial and the prosecution utterly and miserably FAILED to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that he was guilty.

Now putting on our SPECULATION glasses, I believe if a Manslaughter charge had been pursued from the beginning knowing full well the defense was going to use the "Stand your ground" statute they could have made a much better case and Zimmerman, as much of a douche that he may be; would have wound up with either the same verdict or the community approved 5-10.

It's really NOT THAT HARD PEOPLE. Now can we discuss the most important topic of breakfast foodstuffs?

shower_in_my_socks:Owangotang: Crowd gathered at a horse statue in Chicago, moment of silence for Trayvon with fists lifted in the air.

Silent march happening in San Fran.

I'm away from SF now, but if I was in town now, I just don't know how I would be silent about hearing that Tim Lincecum pitched a no-hitter. Though I think I could manage. I know that if i were I would be at one of the events, more likely the silent porotest in Union Square than the ANSWER one in the Mission. ANSWER grinds my gears on a few issues by going to far like being TOTALLY anti-Israeli and other issues.

You keep saying "left the situation," but unless she had a way of getting out, she hadn't left anything. She went into an enclosed garage that she reportedly could not exit from without going back through the house where her attacker was located. If there's an assailant in my living room, and I retreat to my bedroom to get my gun, I haven't "left the situation" - I've gone to arm myself against the person assaulting me in my home. Unless the garage door was standing wide open and she had an easy way out to run for her life, she had not "retreated" or left farking anything. I don't know why you can't understand that. What I've read about this is that she was trapped in the house and COULD NOT get out through the garage.

Now, if she ran OUTSIDE to get a gun in her car parked out on the street, and then ran back INSIDE, then you would have a good point. But that's not what happened, no matter how much you want to wish it into being true.

So...we already established that she was violating the restraining order by going to a house she didn't live at. Now you're saying her car was in a garage that she couldn't get out of? How'd the car get in there?

Mentat:Dimensio: Is an alternative available other than legally prohibiting individuals from using force if they are in fact threatened by a violent attacker?

What if they are threatened by that violent attacker because they provoked the confrontation by chasing him down? You shouldn't be able to escalate a situation and/or provoke a fight and then claim self-defense when the fight turns against you. It's nothing more than a grown-up version of the "He hit me first!" defense.

Got some sort of proof any of that happened? If so, the prosecutors could have used your help.

skullkrusher:Mistymtnhop: skullkrusher: Mistymtnhop: skullkrusher: shower_in_my_socks: skullkrusher: she LEFT the situation, got a farking gun and then REENTERED the situation. Stop doing a disservice to an actual problem by being a jackhole

She went into the garage of her own house to arm herself and then told her abusive husband to get the fark out before shooting a single shot into the ceiling. Give me a farking break.

It''s not like she got out of her car, tracked her husband down on a public sidewalk, and then shot him to death, right???

so, she extricated herself from the situation, entered a means of farking escape from the vicinity, got a gun, reentered the situation and fired "warning shots" that could have killed children but you can't see how that's kinda different than this or how she wasn't "standing her ground" after she had already ceded the ground and farking left the allegedly dangerous situation?

You're not even trying to make sense, are you?

Have you ever been a woman in an abusive relationship that just got sick of him smacking you around and maybe was so hurt and embarrassed and enraged that you might have done something that ''doesn't make sense?"

I have never been a woman, no. Is this one of those situations where we can't comment on the legality of a person's actions because we're not that person in question?

You can comment all you like, I was simply curious as to your level of understanding ''what made sense " to this particular woman in this particular situation. On this point I don't really think you can speak intelligently.

unless shower_in_my_socks is the woman in question, I have not commented on whether anything she did "made sense" so I have no idea what the fark you're talking about

I see, I assumed you were speaking for the both of you when you used the word " we're." Perhaps I misunderstood.

I'm not sure I even disagree with Florida law. I could see it protecting a person after they protected themselves in a more clear cut situation. I would use lethal force if somebody was beating the shiat out of me, even for being a dick. It's my right. I'm too old, would get hurt, and can't miss any work. Would not want to do the FL min. 9 years for it either.

Mentat:Dimensio: Is an alternative available other than legally prohibiting individuals from using force if they are in fact threatened by a violent attacker?

What if they are threatened by that violent attacker because they provoked the confrontation by chasing him down? You shouldn't be able to escalate a situation and/or provoke a fight and then claim self-defense when the fight turns against you. It's nothing more than a grown-up version of the "He hit me first!" defense.

In most states, if police or prosecution are able to prove that the user of deadly force initiated the confrontation by "chasing down" the deceased, then self-defense laws are not applicable.

shower_in_my_socks:skullkrusher: she LEFT the situation, got a farking gun and then REENTERED the situation. Stop doing a disservice to an actual problem by being a jackhole

She went into the garage of her own house to arm herself and then told her abusive husband to get the fark out before shooting a single shot into the ceiling. Give me a farking break.

It''s not like she got out of her car, tracked her husband down on a public sidewalk, and then shot him to death, right???

The trial was more than a year ago, so your memory may be faded. The bullet went through a wall "at adult head height" and ricocheted into the ceiling. It could just as easily have been deflected downward to strike one of the kids who were standing with their father. And then there's this:

"Less than five months later, Alexander was arrested, again, on a domestic battery charge involving her husband." She punched him in the eye that time.

Hubby had two prior DV arrests. Charges were dropped in the first case. He got probation in the second and a protective order. Such orders include staying away from the subject and all places he is known to frequent. Alexander violated that order by being in that home whether he was there or not, whether it was legally her residence or not. She was ordered to stay away from him, his residence, and probably some other named places such as his workplace.

If she wanted her stuff, she could have called for police backup and gotten some acquaintances to go in and get her stuff.

The whole case reeks of crazy woman to me. Definitely aggravated assault with a firearm and endangering children.

At best I saw a nosy moron who chose to follow someone, which was a foo move and stupid (mind your own business), but not against a law. At best, the person nosy moron followed happened to be a paranoid idiot hopped up on mary jane who probably decided the moron following him was "the Man" and needed some fisticuffs. One idiot was armed with a street curb, the other moron armed with a gun. Bullets win.

Morals of the story: Mind your own damned business and if you're doing drugs, stay at home.

tenpoundsofcheese:tiggis: They cant file a wrongful death civil suit in this case because Stand your Ground is designed to not allow it.

Stand Your Ground had NOTHING to do with this case.

Seriously, why do people who didn't watch the trial or didn't understand it keep reporting "facts"?

Yeah, I've noticed a lot of people in here that haven't been in the last 2 weeks worth of threads. I'm sure many of them had made up their minds made up weeks or months ago, and didn't watch anything but MSNBC.. and now they're SHOCKED that what most people have been saying in these threads for 2 weeks are all of a sudden a surprise now.

Elegy:Mistymtnhop: Elegy: Mistymtnhop: Have you ever been a woman in an abusive relationship that just got sick of him smacking you around and maybe was so hurt and embarrassed and enraged that you might have done something that ''doesn't make sense?"

You mean, like a crime? One that endangered her children, at that?

Exactly like that.

Can't say I've ever committed a crime because I let my emotions run away with my god given sense. Is this a common thing that happens to women? I would think they would be running wild in the streets if it was.....

Yes because the action of one person in a particular group defines the norm of the entire group.

When you really look a Florida law, they could have beat it without stand your ground. It would probably qualify as justifiable homicide just because Zs nose was messed up.

All this "justice" talk is dumb. It's the law. I consider Sharia law unjust, but it's the law where people are willing to live with it.

I think the law is farked up too. And Florida's citizens realized it was farked up months ago when this thing started growing. But you're right, they could have beat it even without the stand-your-ground clause.

uhhh, they did beat it with the SYG clause.that was not used in this case. The media made a big deal out of it, the defense didn't use it.

Seriously, did anyone watch the trial or watch any fair and balanced reporting of the case?

Southern100:tenpoundsofcheese: tiggis: They cant file a wrongful death civil suit in this case because Stand your Ground is designed to not allow it.

Stand Your Ground had NOTHING to do with this case.

Seriously, why do people who didn't watch the trial or didn't understand it keep reporting "facts"?

Yeah, I've noticed a lot of people in here that haven't been in the last 2 weeks worth of threads. I'm sure many of them had made up their minds made up weeks or months ago, and didn't watch anything but MSNBC.. and now they're SHOCKED that what most people have been saying in these threads for 2 weeks are all of a sudden a surprise now.

I was purposefully avoiding the theater of it. Had bigger things to worry about, like the abortion legislation that got almost no air time this week.

tollbooth_willy:So...we already established that she was violating the restraining order by going to a house she didn't live at. Now you're saying her car was in a garage that she couldn't get out of? How'd the car get in there?

It was THEIR former house. She went there to get her shiat out. She didn't think he would be there. He showed up and saw a text on her cell from a former husband. He got pissed and started beating and strangling her. From the articles that I read, she couldn't get out of the garage. I don't know why. Maybe he parked behind her? But here's a farking idea - why don't you read about the farking case before attacking people who have?

You keep saying "left the situation," but unless she had a way of getting out, she hadn't left anything. She went into an enclosed garage that she reportedly could not exit from without going back through the house where her attacker was located. If there's an assailant in my living room, and I retreat to my bedroom to get my gun, I haven't "left the situation" - I've gone to arm myself against the person assaulting me in my home. Unless the garage door was standing wide open and she had an easy way out to run for her life, she had not "retreated" or left farking anything. I don't know why you can't understand that. What I've read about this is that she was trapped in the house and COULD NOT get out through the garage.

Now, if she ran OUTSIDE to get a gun in her car parked out on the street, and then ran back INSIDE, then you would have a good point. But that's not what happened, no matter how much you want to wish it into being true.

unless the car was parked in the farking living room, she was out of the situation. She returned to the situation and confronted him. That is not what someone who is in fear for their life would do. If she was genuinely afraid for her life, she would have just farking left. As a result, her firing the gun was not justified. This is why she is in jail. In Zimmerman's case, the jury found that firing his gun WAS justified. This is why he is NOT in jail.

"Stand your ground" doesn't mean you can shoot someone for any reason you'd like no matter how much you want to wish it into being true so you can fit your grand racist conspiracy.

I need to post twice in a row here to point out how asinine a protest over this is in Chicago of all places. How bad is the black on black crime there? How many murders a week? It's like the OK Corral except there's electricity.

Mistymtnhop:Elegy: Mistymtnhop: Elegy: Mistymtnhop: Have you ever been a woman in an abusive relationship that just got sick of him smacking you around and maybe was so hurt and embarrassed and enraged that you might have done something that ''doesn't make sense?"

You mean, like a crime? One that endangered her children, at that?

Exactly like that.

Can't say I've ever committed a crime because I let my emotions run away with my god given sense. Is this a common thing that happens to women? I would think they would be running wild in the streets if it was.....

Yes because the action of one person in a particular group defines the norm of the entire group.

Let me see if I've got this right. Men can't understand what was going through her mind because she was a woman. But when Elegy paints with HIS broad brush...

BarkingUnicorn:shower_in_my_socks: skullkrusher: she LEFT the situation, got a farking gun and then REENTERED the situation. Stop doing a disservice to an actual problem by being a jackhole

She went into the garage of her own house to arm herself and then told her abusive husband to get the fark out before shooting a single shot into the ceiling. Give me a farking break.

It''s not like she got out of her car, tracked her husband down on a public sidewalk, and then shot him to death, right???

The trial was more than a year ago, so your memory may be faded. The bullet went through a wall "at adult head height" and ricocheted into the ceiling. It could just as easily have been deflected downward to strike one of the kids who were standing with their father. And then there's this:

"But authorities, on the accounts of her husband and her two stepsons, have said it was Alexander who began the violence, "hitting on" Gray. In her arrest report, all three said she pointed the gun in their direction before the shot was fired.

"Less than five months later, Alexander was arrested, again, on a domestic battery charge involving her husband." She punched him in the eye that time.

Hubby had two prior DV arrests. Charges were dropped in the first case. He got probation in the second and a protective order. Such orders include staying away from the subject and all places he is known to frequent. Alexander violated that order by being in that home whether he was there or not, whether it was legally her residence or not. She was ordered to stay away from him, his residence, and probably some other named places such as his workplace.

If she wanted her stuff, she could have called for police backup and gotten some acquaintances to go in and get her stuff.

The whole case reeks of crazy woman to me. Definitely aggravated assault with a firearm and endangering children.

People that biatch about Marissa Alexander and complain that SYG doesn't apply to women or to victims of domestic violence forget about Amanda Arruda, who was the victim of a brutal domestic assault and stabbed her attacker, and was arrested for it, but was later cleared of all wrong doing in her pre-trial immunity hearing.